Smith v. Intl Paper Co

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-60366
Summary Calendar
Lower Court No. 1:99-CV-571
KENNETH SMITH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY,
BRIAN HUTSON and EARLIE THOMAS,
Defendants–Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
October 10, 2001
Before JONES, SMITH and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Kenneth Smith appeals the district court’s summary
judgment order dismissing his Title VII and negligence claims.
Smith concedes that he failed to comply with company procedures for
shutdown of the machine on which he worked to enable routine
maintenance. Smith’s failure to follow company procedures created
1
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
a dangerous environment for his co-workers. Additionally, it is
undisputed that Smith’s performance record contained several
disciplinary actions in lieu of discharge, and that Smith was
warned that future violations of company procedures would result in
termination. These facts constitute a legitimate, non-
discriminatory reason for Smith’s termination, and Smith has
offered no evidence of pretext, nor has he proved that his black
coworkers were in a similar position to him when they received less
harsh punishment. Therefore, Smith’s Title VII claim fails. See
Sreeram v. Louisiana State Univ. Med. Center-Shreveport, 188 F.3d
314, 318 (5th. Cir. 1999) (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,
411 U.S. 792, 801-03 (1973).
To establish his additional claim of negligence against
the coworkers, Smith must offer evidence establishing duty, breach,
causation and damages. Palmer v. Anderson Infirmary Benevolent
Assoc., 656 So.2d 790, 793 (Miss. 1995). Smith has failed to
present evidence establishing a duty owed to him by Thomas and
Hutson . Even if Thomas and Hutson owed Smith a duty, Smith has
failed to prove that there was a breach of this duty which caused
Smith’s termination. The district court appropriately dismissed
Smith’s negligence claims.
We AFFIRM the summary judgment order entered by the
district court for the reasons stated in its comprehensive opinion.
2
3